on the strength of gender alone. And this is a damn good day for the Constitution and for what this country was founded on, because individual states should not have the ability to invalidate the rights of individuals to do what is largely viewed as acceptable if not salutary.
The argument against marriage equality is, basically, this is a civil good when straight folks do it, but somehow it transforms into a morally abhorrent thing when gay folks do it. But the moral difference between gay and straight is nowhere established because where is the difference between male and female? Between races? All citizens of legal age need to be treated equally under the law.
So two consenting men or two consenting women can enter the bonds of marriage because two people--those gender things being equal--will do. It doesn't invalidate laws regarding bigamy, and it doesn't suddenly sanction incest. All it does is say that there are no "gay marriage states" vs "no gay marriage states", and that there is no longer a separate but equal snobbery where gay people can enjoy some, but not all privileges of marriage.
You might, if you care for legal history, note that I just framed my approval in language that might be familiar to people who know about the Dred Scot decision and Plessy vs. Ferguson. Both represent very bad law, but both also were recognized by my former stupid senator as being the kind of law that was bad and needed to be overturned, when he completely misunderstands the relationship of the Obergefell decision to civil rights history. It is the idea of gay marriage states vs marriage ban states that make gayness unequal by law, and the idea that gay people have no rights that straights need recognize that that makes his POV bigoted and foul. The very claim that Plessy or Dred Scott were decided incorrectly, should be supported by the idea that what made them wrong, was wrong for any other court, on the basis of what justice actually means. And by that same standard, we would judge the rights of gay people to marry.
But I never expect Rick Santorum to be right about gay stuff. I also think Mike Huckabee is a jerk, because I don't think he understands why gay marriage is about more than his own church's preferences. I think Bobby Jindal is the worst, basically, because he thinks that the SCOTUS, which was designed as a separate branch of government independent in itself, should just be defunded if it doesn't serve some kind of popular (he thinks) opinion--wow. How not qualified for president is Bobby Jindal?
To my mind, friend of Strangely Blogged, Mikey gets what this argument is about--personal choice versus state power. The decision to allow gay marriage isn't about restricting anyone, it's just finally letting gay people choose to make their families because we all think family is important, and the business of those people is private and not our stupid business.
The argument for gay marriage is sensible. The argument against, especially the idea that civil strife will arise--
Seriously? I and my straight spouse would fight on the side of equality because--! Love is real. We love love and think it is the right thing. And denying it is the wrong thing. The number of people who feel this way is growing.